efficacy
Research Papers
Showing 6 of 16Neurofeedback for post-traumatic stress disorder: systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and neurophysiological outcomes
Background: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a debilitating condition affecting millions of people worldwide. Existing treatments often fail to address the complexity of its symptoms and functional impairments resulting from severe and prolonged trauma. Electroencephalographic Neurofeedback (NFB) has emerged as a promising treatment that aims to reduce the symptoms of PTSD by modulating brain activity.Objective: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of ten clinical trials to answer the question: how effective is NFB in addressing PTSD and other associated symptoms across different trauma populations, and are these improvements related to neurophysiological changes?Method: The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta analyses guidelines. We considered all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) involving adults with PTSD as a primary diagnosis without exclusion by type of trauma, co-morbid diagnosis, locality, or sex. Ten controlled studies were included; seven RCTs and three NRSIs with a total number of participants n = 293 (128 male). Only RCTs were included in the meta-analysis (215 participants; 88 male).Results: All included studies showed an advantage of NFB over control conditions in reducing symptoms of PTSD, with indications of improvement in symptoms of anxiety and depression and related neurophysiological changes. Meta-analysis of the pooled data shows a significant reduction in PTSD symptoms post-treatment SMD of -1.76 (95% CI -2.69, -0.83), and the mean remission rate was higher in the NFB group (79.3%) compared to the control group (24.4%). However, the studies reviewed were mostly small, with heterogeneous populations and varied quality.Conclusions: The effect of NFB on the symptoms of PTSD was moderate and mechanistic evidence suggested that NFB leads to therapeutic changes in brain functioning. Future research should focus on more rigorous methodological designs, expanded sample size and longer follow-up.
View Full Paper →Efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological, psychosocial, and brain stimulation interventions in children and adolescents with mental disorders: an umbrella review
Top‐tier evidence on the safety/tolerability of 80 medications in children/adolescents with mental disorders has recently been reviewed in this journal. To guide clinical practice, such data must be combined with evidence on efficacy and acceptability. Besides medications, psychosocial interventions and brain stimulation techniques are treatment options for children/adolescents with mental disorders. For this umbrella review, we systematically searched network meta‐analyses (NMAs) and meta‐analyses (MAs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating 48 medications, 20 psychosocial interventions, and four brain stimulation techniques in children/adolescents with 52 different mental disorders or groups of mental disorders, reporting on 20 different efficacy/acceptability outcomes. Co‐primary outcomes were disease‐specific symptom reduction and all‐cause discontinuation (“acceptability”). We included 14 NMAs and 90 MAs, reporting on 15 mental disorders or groups of mental disorders. Overall, 21 medications outperformed placebo regarding the co‐primary outcomes, and three psychosocial interventions did so (while seven outperformed waiting list/no treatment). Based on the meta‐analytic evidence, the most convincing efficacy profile emerged for amphetamines, methylphenidate and, to a smaller extent, behavioral therapy in attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder; aripiprazole, risperidone and several psychosocial interventions in autism; risperidone and behavioral interventions in disruptive behavior disorders; several antipsychotics in schizophrenia spectrum disorders; fluoxetine, the combination of fluoxetine and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and interpersonal therapy in depression; aripiprazole in mania; fluoxetine and group CBT in anxiety disorders; fluoxetine/selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, CBT, and behavioral therapy with exposure and response prevention in obsessive‐compulsive disorder; CBT in post‐traumatic stress disorder; imipramine and alarm behavioral intervention in enuresis; behavioral therapy in encopresis; and family therapy in anorexia nervosa. Results from this umbrella review of interventions for mental disorders in children/adolescents provide evidence‐based information for clinical decision making.
View Full Paper →Neurofeedback Training for Social Cognitive Deficits: A Systematic Review
<p><strong>Orndorff and his colleagues [1]</strong> suggested that if a neural activity is considered a treatment variable instead of outcome, it widens the scope of research and has a specific implication for social neuroscience. Given this, the empirical evidence is collected and analyzed where neural activity as self-manipulation design through neurofeedback training specifically for social cognition deficit is done. The objective of the present article is to provide a systematic review of 1) how NFT is utilized to treat social cognitive deficits, 2) how NFT is utilized to target Social Cognition Deficit in ASD, 3) examining the directions, strengths, and quality of evidence to support the use of NFT for ASD. The databases for studies were searched in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Springer, Science Direct, Psychinfo, and Google Scholar, using combinations of the following keywords: ‘Neurofeedback,’ ‘Autism Spectrum Disorder,’ ‘Mu Rhythm’ and ‘Social Cognition.’ Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were specific to 1) autistic and typically developed population, 2) intervention study, 3) Delivered by NFT, 4) participants showed social cognitive deficit and/or improvement. Total one eighty-seven studies were found of key interest; out of which 17 studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. All studies reported the improvement in different domains of social cognition and were moderately methodologically sound. Eleven out of seventeen studies satisfied the trainability and interpretability criteria suggested by <strong>Zoefel and his colleagues [2].</strong> The conclusion from the present review is in line with comments of <strong>Marzbani and colleagues [3]</strong> that, ‘current research does not provide sufficient conclusive results about its efficacy.’ The patterns and directions concluded from studies related to protocol, methodology and results are discussed in detail in the present review.</p>
View Full Paper →Multimodal treatment in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a 6-month follow-up
Background: Different treatment approaches aimed at reducing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) core symptoms are available. However, factors such as intolerance, side-effects, lack of efficacy, high new technology costs, and placebo effect have spurred on an increasing interest in alternative or complementary treatment. Aim: The aim of this study is to explore efficacy of multimodal treatment consisting of standard stimulant medication (methylphenidate) and neurofeedback (NF) in combination, and to compare it with the single treatment in 6-month follow-up in ADHD children and adolescents. Methods: This randomized controlled trial with 6-month follow-up comprised three treatment arms: multimodal treatment (NF + MED), MED alone, and NF alone. A total of 130 ADHD children/adolescents participated, and 62% completed the study. ADHD core symptoms were recorded pre-/post-treatment, using parents’ and teachers’ forms taken from Barkley’s Defiant Children: A Clinician’s Manual for Assessment and Parent Training, and a self-report questionnaire. Results: Significant ADHD core symptom improvements were reported 6 months after treatment completion by parents, teachers, and participants in all three groups, with marked improvement in inattention in all groups. However, no significant improvements in hyperactivity or academic performance were reported by teachers or self-reported by children/adolescents, respectively, in the three groups. Changes obtained with multimodal treatment at 6-month follow-up were comparable to those with single medication treatment, as reported by all participants. Conclusions: Multimodal treatment using combined stimulant medication and NF showed 6-month efficacy in ADHD treatment. More research is needed to explore whether multimodal treatment is suitable for ADHD children and adolescents who showed a poor response to single medication treatment, and for those who want to reduce the use of stimulant medication.
View Full Paper →Behavioral effects of neurofeedback in adolescents with ADHD: a randomized controlled trial
Neurofeedback has been proposed as a potentially effective intervention for reducing Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptoms. However, it remains unclear whether neurofeedback is of additional value to treatment as usual (TAU) for adolescents with clinical ADHD symptoms. Using a multicenter parallel-randomized controlled trial design, adolescents with ADHD symptoms were randomized to receive either a combination of TAU and neurofeedback (NFB + TAU, n = 45) or TAU-only (n = 26). Randomization was computer generated and stratified for age group (ages 12 through 16, 16 through 20, 20 through 24). Neurofeedback treatment consisted of approximately 37 sessions of theta/sensorimotor rhythm (SMR)-training on the vertex (Cz). Primary behavioral outcome measures included the ADHD-rating scale, Youth Self Report, and Child Behavior Checklist all assessed pre- and post-intervention. Behavioral problems decreased equally for both groups with medium to large effect sizes, range of partial η2 = 0.08–0.31, p < 0.05. Hence, the combination of NFB + TAU was not more effective than TAU-only on the behavioral outcome measures. In addition, reported adverse effects were similar for both groups. On behavioral outcome measures, the combination of neurofeedback and TAU was as effective as TAU-only for adolescents with ADHD symptoms. Considering the absence of additional behavioral effects in the current study, in combination with the limited knowledge of specific treatment effects, it is questionable whether theta/SMR neurofeedback for adolescents with ADHD and comorbid disorders in clinical practice should be used. Further research is warranted to investigate possible working mechanisms and (long-term) specific treatment effects of neurofeedback.
View Full Paper →Eficacia del neurofeedback para el tratamiento de los trastornos del espectro autista: Una revisión sistemática
Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) are characterized by impairments in communication and interaction skills, stereotyped patterns of behavior and restricted interests. They show anomalous electroencephalographic (EEG) patterns that might explain those impairments. Neurofeedback is considered to be a therapeutic alternative for their normalization. The objective was to review the evidence on the efficacy of neurofeedback as a treatment for ASDs. We conducted a systematic review of 17 empirical studies localized thru an exhaustive bibliographic search of the databases PsycInfo, PsycArticles and Pubmed. The results indicate certain efficacy of neurofeedback in the treatment of abnormal EEG patterns and core ASD symptoms, as well as others such as impairments in attention and cognitive functions, anxiety or behavioral disorders. Neurofeedback may be considered a treatment "with modest experimental support" or "probably efficacious" with "controversial support", though more methodologically rigorous studies are needed to determine its therapeutic efficacy with more certainty
View Full Paper →Ready to Optimize Your Brain?
Schedule a free consultation to discuss efficacy and how neurofeedback training can help
Or call us directly at 855-88-BRAIN
View Programs & Pricing →